locallyunsceneFeeder of TrollsJoin Date: 2002-12-25Member: 11528Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1720803:date=Aug 5 2009, 02:45 PM:name=homicide)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (homicide @ Aug 5 2009, 02:45 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1720803"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->This is why I am suggesting the developers should mold the high level game mechanics as they desire: redefine the role of the commander, change resource structure, implement dynamic infestation, change siege mechanics, hell they could even add in another race, etc... However, they should rely heavily on the community's opinion when it comes to the aspects that define the feel of the game: alien movement, marine movement, aim, recoil (or lack there of), cone of fire, fundamental weapons, game-pace, etc... With this in mind, the development team should attempt to maintain continuity in low level mechanics from NS1 to NS2. Movement, aim, fundamental weapons, game-pace should all remain relatively similar.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I don't disagree with this. <!--quoteo(post=1720803:date=Aug 5 2009, 02:45 PM:name=homicide)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (homicide @ Aug 5 2009, 02:45 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1720803"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The devs tried to implement unique movement mechanics... and failed. This was made obvious thanks to player testing and opinion. So they tried again. This went on for ages (NS was "beta" for like 4 years LOL). Eventually the developers finally implemented simple movement mechanics that relied less on their own ingenuity and more on what the PLAYERS wanted - movement that facilitated half-life air control.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> But I'm not sure what alternate reality you pulled this from.
<!--quoteo(post=1720806:date=Aug 5 2009, 11:04 AM:name=locallyunscene)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (locallyunscene @ Aug 5 2009, 11:04 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1720806"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->But I'm not sure what alternate reality you pulled this from.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Original fade blink, original (and 2nd and 3rd) lerk movement, marine reverse walk, +movement - most NS-unique movement mechanics were completely redesigned away from their original concepts or bypassed once players, instead of developers, started to play the game.
I am obviously not very confident in the teams ability to make decent movement mechanics out of the box. I am hoping, but skeptical, that the developers have learned that implementing over-the-top unique movement mechanics is <b>not</b> the way to design an enjoyable fast paced game, but rather, having an incredibly flexible and controllable base movement that is 'emphasized' by unique abilities. When I read things like, "we want skulks to have skill based movement", it worries me that they still don't understand the role half-life physics has played in molding NS1. <b>Every</b> class, both marine and alien, currently has skill based movement that stims from the wacky-broken-what-ever-you-want-to-call-it control found in the half-life engine. Just because <b>they</b> didn't give marines leap doesn't mean their movement isn't just as important as skulks. Now that they have decided to design their own engine they <b>will</b> have to implement the base movement mechanics. If they ignore the community, NS2 will probably be based on crappy halo-like physics that <b>do not</b> have the <b>foundation</b> for the fast-paced-movement based gameplay found in NS.
<!--quoteo(post=1720814:date=Aug 5 2009, 02:42 PM:name=homicide)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (homicide @ Aug 5 2009, 02:42 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1720814"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Original fade blink, original (and 2nd and 3rd) lerk movement, marine reverse walk, +movement - most NS-unique movement mechanics were completely redesigned away from their original concepts or bypassed once players, instead of developers, started to play the game.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I for one am pretty sure they added +movement just to make life easier instead of forcing everyone to have hud_fastswitch on.
Also, I tried out v1.04 recently, and Fade blink sucked. Really annoying to aim, hard to tell if it would go off, etc.
Please elaborate Lerk movement changes. I kinda like gliding, it's a really nice improvement.
As with everything in the world it is a balance, you can not go back and completely change all of your work at the request of a few fans but you also can not ignore a complain or suggestion coming from a large percentage of your fan base. Getting too far away from this balance on either side can kill a product.
<!--quoteo(post=1719580:date=Jul 27 2009, 04:17 PM:name=linfosoma)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (linfosoma @ Jul 27 2009, 04:17 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1719580"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Here´s an old article on the escapist magazine website which I find interesting: <a href="http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/issues/issue_72/416-Youre-Wrong" target="_blank">http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/v...416-Youre-Wrong</a>
If you dont feel like reading it (you should try and read it anyway), the arcticle talks about how developers that listen to their community ends up ruinning the game because they stray away from their main goal to please what in reality is just a very small percentage of their costumers.
This is related to both the pistol/taser thing and the heavy armor.
So what do you think? Does listening to your fanbase is any good or should you just take the risk and keep on working on your main idea in order to provide a "pure" experience?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Screw escapist magazine.
Just because they are some half-assed internet game website doesn't mean what they say is true.
They are just there to churn out articles and keep people reading, not to reveal the truth! No news source of any kind ever does that. Don't you know?
The reason why that might not work with this community is because the ideas we have are..... actually good. (not including the ones about jetpack skulks and super jump onos, those are outliers.)
Just because they are some half-assed internet game website doesn't mean what they say is true.
They are just there to churn out articles and keep people reading, not to reveal the truth! No news source of any kind ever does that. Don't you know?
The reason why that might not work with this community is because the ideas we have are..... actually good. (not including the ones about jetpack skulks and super jump onos, those are outliers.)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Sturgeon's law refutes you. As does reading basically any random thread in the I&S forum.
<!--quoteo(post=1729453:date=Sep 28 2009, 11:16 PM:name=Kwil)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kwil @ Sep 28 2009, 11:16 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1729453"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Sturgeon's law refutes you. As does reading basically any random thread in the I&S forum.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
dude u sound like a nerd what the heck are u talking bout?
<!--quoteo(post=1729461:date=Sep 28 2009, 05:27 PM:name=thepwner)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (thepwner @ Sep 28 2009, 05:27 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1729461"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->dude u sound like a nerd what the heck are u talking bout?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Watch the name calling.
I've never heard of "Sturgeon's Law" but there's this great thing called Google. :) <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon%27s_Law" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon%27s_Law</a>
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Sturgeon’s Law is the name given to two different adages The first is: “Nothing is always absolutely soâ€. The second, and more famous, of these adages is: “Ninety percent of everything is crud.â€<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=1729497:date=Sep 28 2009, 10:55 PM:name=Ahnteis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Ahnteis @ Sep 28 2009, 10:55 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1729497"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Watch the name calling.
I've never heard of "Sturgeon's Law" but there's this great thing called Google. :) <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon%27s_Law" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon%27s_Law</a><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> His laws are 90% crud. They suck.
You shouldn't listen to things just because people suggest them, because your fanbase are almost certainly not game designers and probably haven't thought it through too well, however you should listen to GOOD ideas, which can come from members of your fanbase.
Also consider that vocal elements of fanbases can represent a microcosm of the whole, so if you get universally bad reception to an idea, consider changing it, of course you should only change it to another good idea, don't change it to a bad idea just because it gets a good reception.
Good and bad ideas are kinda hard to determine, but you could start by looking at lots of other games and seeing what popular games all have in common, also consider listening more to anybody who has had a good track record of making really good games, as well as playing to human nature, enlightened self-interest is a good way to ensure people do things for example, teamwork for example tends to collapse when it involves one person having to do something that isn't much fun but which is neccesary for the game to work, if you can make all the teamwork stuff be fun to do, it will work much better.
Fans aren't neccesarily idiots, but their ideas are not neccesarily good, nor their reactions neccesarily the final word.
It does come off a bit harsh but its generally correct. As a developer, listening to your community is important and re-acting to them is good. Taking suggestions is alright too, but only if they are considered deeply. The developers know how to make a game good for everyone, the hardcore community is the one that criticises the harshest but they should essentially be ignored. For a game like Natural Selection it could be a bit different, considering that the majority of players may be part of the hardcore community, if the developers make a good game, it won't be.
Well you don't consult them, you give them the product and introduce ideas, then hear their feedback. The "barely aware" casuals are the majority of people who play games. For any game, appealing to the casual gamers is a high priority because they will make you the most money. That is why Call of Duty, Counter-Strike, TF2 etc are all so popular. They are quick and easy fun, but they are also hard to master. If you only consult your hardcore fanbase, you will probably make a good game, but it will be complex and uninteresting for casual gamers. Hopefully NS2 can appeal to everyone just like TF2 or the like does.
I really fear topics like this, because it's people who generally don't work with consumer products or with any sort of development production line. Second more it's people who have never taken the time to come to learn to understand such things or even try to get a bit of experience with it in one form or another, so the amount of potential valid opinions turn in to what you can only describe as "whine".
The customer is not always right. Until you actually sample a product you can not 100% hand on heart refuse an idea on a product, nor can you 100% say that your idea or difference of opinion to those making the product is going to be 'better'.
Particularly in creating games and development if any one has ever been part of a mod team, game team or thoroughly playtested they will understand this. In large part the people on these forums with the largest amount of modification, game team and playtesting experience are voicing their opinion less. Why? They understand such things, for those that don't they should simply take the age old saying "Don't judge a book by its cover", before arguing your opinion.
If I was to give a definitive answer to the original post I'd partly agree and partly disagree with the poster at The Escapist. They're entirely right with their definition of 'hardcore', it's justifiable. I believe the team do as I would, ignore 99% of everything that is said which proposes an idea because it's their game they are developing, their own ideas come first and rightly so.
A lot of people here need to start thinking more about what they are posting, what they are saying instead of arguing against each other derailing threads and just making their own envision of a game world. If you think you can do better, do it. If not or if you like what you see start discussing, which means you don't insult you take the idea and say "Would it be cool if this was like this?" and say for or why it may be, that's how you can give something useful in feedback to the development process. If you can't do anything similar you're wasting your own time and could find yourself pretty unpopular in threads such as this.
Comments
I don't disagree with this.
<!--quoteo(post=1720803:date=Aug 5 2009, 02:45 PM:name=homicide)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (homicide @ Aug 5 2009, 02:45 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1720803"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The devs tried to implement unique movement mechanics... and failed. This was made obvious thanks to player testing and opinion. So they tried again. This went on for ages (NS was "beta" for like 4 years LOL). Eventually the developers finally implemented simple movement mechanics that relied less on their own ingenuity and more on what the PLAYERS wanted - movement that facilitated half-life air control.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But I'm not sure what alternate reality you pulled this from.
Original fade blink, original (and 2nd and 3rd) lerk movement, marine reverse walk, +movement - most NS-unique movement mechanics were completely redesigned away from their original concepts or bypassed once players, instead of developers, started to play the game.
I am obviously not very confident in the teams ability to make decent movement mechanics out of the box. I am hoping, but skeptical, that the developers have learned that implementing over-the-top unique movement mechanics is <b>not</b> the way to design an enjoyable fast paced game, but rather, having an incredibly flexible and controllable base movement that is 'emphasized' by unique abilities. When I read things like, "we want skulks to have skill based movement", it worries me that they still don't understand the role half-life physics has played in molding NS1. <b>Every</b> class, both marine and alien, currently has skill based movement that stims from the wacky-broken-what-ever-you-want-to-call-it control found in the half-life engine. Just because <b>they</b> didn't give marines leap doesn't mean their movement isn't just as important as skulks. Now that they have decided to design their own engine they <b>will</b> have to implement the base movement mechanics. If they ignore the community, NS2 will probably be based on crappy halo-like physics that <b>do not</b> have the <b>foundation</b> for the fast-paced-movement based gameplay found in NS.
I for one am pretty sure they added +movement just to make life easier instead of forcing everyone to have hud_fastswitch on.
Also, I tried out v1.04 recently, and Fade blink sucked. Really annoying to aim, hard to tell if it would go off, etc.
Please elaborate Lerk movement changes. I kinda like gliding, it's a really nice improvement.
If the Dev team listens to the customers and they get what they want... what is the problem?
If everyone is agreeing on something then it must be a good idea, and as far as I can tell the NS community is somewhat intelligent.
<a href="http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/issues/issue_72/416-Youre-Wrong" target="_blank">http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/v...416-Youre-Wrong</a>
If you dont feel like reading it (you should try and read it anyway), the arcticle talks about how developers that listen to their community ends up ruinning the game because they stray away from their main goal to please what in reality is just a very small percentage of their costumers.
This is related to both the pistol/taser thing and the heavy armor.
So what do you think?
Does listening to your fanbase is any good or should you just take the risk and keep on working on your main idea in order to provide a "pure" experience?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Screw escapist magazine.
Just because they are some half-assed internet game website doesn't mean what they say is true.
They are just there to churn out articles and keep people reading, not to reveal the truth! No news source of any kind ever does that. Don't you know?
The reason why that might not work with this community is because the ideas we have are..... actually good. (not including the ones about jetpack skulks and super jump onos, those are outliers.)
Just because they are some half-assed internet game website doesn't mean what they say is true.
They are just there to churn out articles and keep people reading, not to reveal the truth! No news source of any kind ever does that. Don't you know?
The reason why that might not work with this community is because the ideas we have are..... actually good. (not including the ones about jetpack skulks and super jump onos, those are outliers.)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sturgeon's law refutes you.
As does reading basically any random thread in the I&S forum.
As does reading basically any random thread in the I&S forum.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
dude u sound like a nerd what the heck are u talking bout?
Watch the name calling.
I've never heard of "Sturgeon's Law" but there's this great thing called Google. :)
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon%27s_Law" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon%27s_Law</a>
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Sturgeon’s Law is the name given to two different adages
The first is: “Nothing is always absolutely soâ€.
The second, and more famous, of these adages is: “Ninety percent of everything is crud.â€<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I've never heard of "Sturgeon's Law" but there's this great thing called Google. :)
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon%27s_Law" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon%27s_Law</a><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
His laws are 90% crud. They suck.
Also consider that vocal elements of fanbases can represent a microcosm of the whole, so if you get universally bad reception to an idea, consider changing it, of course you should only change it to another good idea, don't change it to a bad idea just because it gets a good reception.
Good and bad ideas are kinda hard to determine, but you could start by looking at lots of other games and seeing what popular games all have in common, also consider listening more to anybody who has had a good track record of making really good games, as well as playing to human nature, enlightened self-interest is a good way to ensure people do things for example, teamwork for example tends to collapse when it involves one person having to do something that isn't much fun but which is neccesary for the game to work, if you can make all the teamwork stuff be fun to do, it will work much better.
Fans aren't neccesarily idiots, but their ideas are not neccesarily good, nor their reactions neccesarily the final word.
It does come off a bit harsh but its generally correct. As a developer, listening to your community is important and re-acting to them is good. Taking suggestions is alright too, but only if they are considered deeply. The developers know how to make a game good for everyone, the hardcore community is the one that criticises the harshest but they should essentially be ignored. For a game like Natural Selection it could be a bit different, considering that the majority of players may be part of the hardcore community, if the developers make a good game, it won't be.
The players with the right mix of in-depth knowledge of balance, game mechanics and skill will always be a good choice for the developers to consult.
I wouldn't recommend consulting the crowd of barely aware casuals.
The "barely aware" casuals are the majority of people who play games. For any game, appealing to the casual gamers is a high priority because they will make you the most money. That is why Call of Duty, Counter-Strike, TF2 etc are all so popular. They are quick and easy fun, but they are also hard to master. If you only consult your hardcore fanbase, you will probably make a good game, but it will be complex and uninteresting for casual gamers. Hopefully NS2 can appeal to everyone just like TF2 or the like does.
The customer is not always right. Until you actually sample a product you can not 100% hand on heart refuse an idea on a product, nor can you 100% say that your idea or difference of opinion to those making the product is going to be 'better'.
Particularly in creating games and development if any one has ever been part of a mod team, game team or thoroughly playtested they will understand this. In large part the people on these forums with the largest amount of modification, game team and playtesting experience are voicing their opinion less. Why? They understand such things, for those that don't they should simply take the age old saying "Don't judge a book by its cover", before arguing your opinion.
If I was to give a definitive answer to the original post I'd partly agree and partly disagree with the poster at The Escapist. They're entirely right with their definition of 'hardcore', it's justifiable. I believe the team do as I would, ignore 99% of everything that is said which proposes an idea because it's their game they are developing, their own ideas come first and rightly so.
A lot of people here need to start thinking more about what they are posting, what they are saying instead of arguing against each other derailing threads and just making their own envision of a game world. If you think you can do better, do it. If not or if you like what you see start discussing, which means you don't insult you take the idea and say "Would it be cool if this was like this?" and say for or why it may be, that's how you can give something useful in feedback to the development process. If you can't do anything similar you're wasting your own time and could find yourself pretty unpopular in threads such as this.